Could you beat Morphy if he gave you knight odds?

But you are a future World Champion! 

Btw, do you think rook odds is a better advantage than knight odds to face Morphy? I have my doubts, since that's a material advantage that usually takes more time to exploit.

I read somewhere that rook odds is easier, but the way to overcome an odds game is making a mess fast.

With rook odds, you get to use your bishops and knights quickly as usual. The rooks don't often get into the game quickly anyway.

With knight odds they're less able to generate play quickly, and you're more likely to stabalize out of the opening.

If it's a kingside took advantage, I don't think it is comparable with a knight advantage. Well, no one talks about bishop odds! Why?!

From the other side of the fence, if I was the one giving up the odds, I would rather concede my QR than my QN. QR is unlikely to have any relevance to a kitchen-sink attack on the king in the opening, which is basically the only thing the handicapped player can try to do.

In the late 1800's was usual masters giving pawn or even knight odds to the bunch or "patzers" (as some people here imagine them) who were swarming at the cafes those days. But bishop odds seems too much to handle against strong players (as I imagine them). 

Not having your QN allows you to get your QR into the game much faster.

What would it be good for though? QN comes to c3, restrains d5 freeing moves from black, hops to d5 or b5 or recaptures on e4 depending on the setup, and joins in an attack. QR has to wait for QB and Q to develop to do anything, by which time black has broken in the centre and is well on his way to consolidating. Initiative is everything in this situation.

no

I'd win for sure! Let's say we play USCF rules except for the missing Knight. I play Black, hit the clock and wait for Morphy to move. One hour later, I claim the win on time!

One time, I heard this guy got out a Ouiji board and tried to play Morphy's ghost. When he went to make the first move his king disappeared and he was so scared he ran out of the room.

True story.

Well.................., no.

In his day Morphy gave odds to patzers like silentknight and beat them handily. There is no reason at all to think that the mere passage of time would change that. And I laugh heartily at the guy thinking he could beat Carlsen at knight odds. The bliss of ignorance!!

First off, I do not believe that *Anyone* on this server could beat Morphy in a 11+ game match at classical time controls starting with even material.

In a knight odds I doubt that anyone under IM strength could beat him in a match.

A knight is a knight, Kasparov played an odds match in 2001 against someone that is now in the 2200s but then hadn't played serious chess for a long time. Kasparov did win 2.5-1.5 but gave two pawns and not a whole piece, and could lose a game like this:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1238128

My guess is that Morphy without a knight would be able to draw a match against a player rated around 2000.

A 2000 rated player would kill Morphy if Morphy played without a knight. 

That's actually a pretty astute observation.  Bishop odds were almost never used, although against a novice, sometimes Bishops would be removed in conjunction with other pieces such as B+N or B+N+R.

Morphy played almost no Queen-odds game.  The only example is one against Maurian when Maurian was first learning - and Morphy lost... probably from inattentiveness.

About Bishop odds:

"A New Treatise on the Game of Chess" by Sarratt 1821
This Law is adopted in every Country. When the odds of a Pawn are given, one move, and sometimes two moves, are also given to the inferior player. It is proper to observe, that, whenever a Pawn is given it is always the King's Bishop's Pawn, The odds of a Bishop are never given.

"Letters on Chess"  by Carl Frederich Vogt (translated by William Lewis) 1849
Carrera then mentions the various odds given, such as to checkmate on a particular square; to win with a marked piece or Pawn, or with any Pawn; playing with King and Pawns only, but having two moves each time, against all the adverse pieces and Pawns; giving the King or Queen the Knight’s move in addition to their own, &c. &c. He does not give any games with these odds, but states to what they are equivalent. He closes this book with the odds of the “ castled King,” with remarks, and several specimens which are well played.
The fifth book opens with examples of the odds of the Knight for the move ; he thinks it superfluous to give any examples of the odds of a Bishop. It is curious that one never sees the odds of a Bishop given; what is the reason? Is it because the Bishop is thought somewhat superior to the Knight? There are four games at these odds, which have, however, nothing particularly interesting in them.

"The Chess Player" by Geo. Walker 1841
A player, giving the odds of a piece, may give it either from the King's or Queen's side; but in giving the odds of a Pawn, it is always understood, that the King's Bishop's Pawn is the one to be given. When a player receives the odds of a certain number of moves at starting, he must not, in taking these moves, cross from his own half of the board.
REMARKS.
Should you give, for instance, the odds of the Knight, without stipulation, as to which Knight, you are at liberty to give either the King's, or Queen's Knight; and you are not compelled to allow the same Knight every game during the sitting, but may choose each game, which Knight you will give. There is little difference as to the Knights, but it is slightly better to give the Queen's Rook, than the King's Book, as the latter can be sooner brought into action. The odds of the Bishop are never given; 1 know not wherefore, unless it arises irom the difficulty of framing an attack, in the commencement of the game, without the two Bishops. The reason why the King's Bishop's Pawn is the one always selected to be given, in odd, is, that it is of greater value than either of the others, from the opening its loss makes upon the King. To give one of the other Pawns would be less odds, and to receive a Rook's Pawn would be hardly any odds at all. Were you permitted to cross the centre of the board, in taking moves given in advantage, such odds could not be allowed, as you might at once force Checkmate. For instance, a very common description of odds is the Pawn, and the three first moves. Now, were you at liberty to take these moves as you choose, you could force Mate at once, through the exposure of your adversary's King. You would only have to move, Firstly, your King's Pawn one square: Secondly, your King's Bishop to your Queen's third square; and, Thirdly, you would check with Queen, and compel Mate; for you might take the interposed Knight's Pawn, with either Queen, or Bishop. In trying these three moves over, on your hoard, remember to take off your adversary's King's Bishop's Pawn.

James Mason also mentioned that Bishop odds were seldom given, but Albert Hodges in a letter the "Columbia Chess Chronicle" complaining about a certain chess braggart claimed the man was so deplorable, he lost 3 games at Bishop and Knight odds.  Whether he actually played such games, or were using them as hyperbole, the implication seems to be that a "real chess-player" should never lose at those odds.

Here's an article I'd written some time ago on odds-giving called The Romance of Chess.

Almost all grandmasters and about 20% of the masters could beat Morphy in such a match.

Why? Because the game of chess has progressed. Morphy would have no good answer vs the Sicilian for example.

GM Kaufman wrote that he thought an 1800 rated player was equal with himself rated 2400 without a knight, and that Kasparov without a knight would be equal with a 2115.